Free Republic

Why can no one understand the difference between what a State government is allowed to do and what the Federal government is allowed to do?

There is a BIG difference. It is entirely legal for State governments to have this kind of law for it’s citizens. But it is NOT legal for the federal government to have this kind of law for ALL STATES. Not in the same manner as the Massachusetts law was set up, anyway.

The decision by Roberts was poorly thought out and drafted. I wrote a similar article prior to this one concerning the way this bill was drafted in the Senate, though I did not know it was rewrote legislation that was taken from the House.

Here is the article I wrote earlier today about this same matter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900990/posts

Yes, doesn’t matter what you call it. Be it mandate, contract, insurance security, etc..

By placing the term “tax” on the condition of non-compliance with said law, that in and of itself makes it unconstitutional.

Trouble is, it can only be tried in court once the “tax” is actually charged to an individual citizen. The other issue is that, like I stated in my article, only the House can introduce law to raise any tax, not the Senate, no matter what name you apply to it. I personally think this should have been thrown out as unconstitutional. Because it was argued amd passed in the Senate as not being a tax, and was passed with votes on the basis that it was to be justified through the Commerce Clause. Because that was misleading to the Senators, and the Public.

I am afraid you are right...

But what is sad is the fact that one day, this snowball that is being formed will in the future roll over the top of all of us, including those that aren’t paying attention because it “doesn’t affect me” now.

By then it will be WAY to late...

Section 10 refers to States right respectively, not to the federal government...

That’s just it, they don’t. And to my knowledge, there has never been a tax levied for something that a citizen didn’t earn, acquire, or already own.

I have been thinking on this as well, until the tax is levied, no one can take it to court...

If anyone knows of past USSC rulings where a tax was used in a ruling in this manner, please post.

Article 1, Section 8? Yes, but doesn’t that same section give the States the authority to call on the militia to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

I would consider what is going on in our border States, especially Arizona, an INVASION...

Agree 100%... Therefore all transactions are taxable, no under the table deals that are missed by the Government. This WILL happen, it is just a matter of time before “We the Sheeple” are hoodwinked...

No, they must be seen, that is the difference. Forcing themselves into everyone else’s life is the difference as well. Liberals and those of the PC world are so blinded by stamping out Christianity, that they are enabling another form of religion in it’s place, yet they see nothing wrong with this, because it is not Christianity.

1) Slaves brought to America were never given citizenship, nor were their children, although born on American soil...

2) Therefore this could not be argued in the courts because they were not afforded the rights under the Constitution...

Abolishment of slavery and involuntary servitude: Amendment 13

Proposed 1/31/1865
Ratified 12/6/1865

3) Only AFTER being freed by their owners, or AFTER the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution could freed slaves be naturalized as citizens of the United States of America.

Passage Fourteenth Amendment:

Proposed 6/13/1866
Ratified 7/9/1868

4) The Fourteenth Amendment afforded citizenship to both freed slaves (born in America or not), and their children born on American soil (immediatly at birth) and it has been suggested that it be amemded because it is now a problem with pregant illegal immigrants from Mexico...

This was in no way judicial activism when the Courts, Congress, and the Citizens made slavery, as well as involuntay servitude, against the law by passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. And immediatly after passage of the 13th, Congress and the States followed through with the 14th, which immediatly gave all of those who had been declared freed through the 13th the right to CITIZENSIP.

Why, simply because if no one is ever naturalized, or made a citizen, YOU ARE NOT AFFORDED ANY RIGHTS AFFORDED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!!!

So WHY THEN CAN DEMOCRATIC SPINSTERS BE ALLOWED TO TWIST HISTORY, AND CALL THIS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM???

What immediatly comes to my mind is our idiot government wanting to MIRANDIZE "enemy combatants" on the battlefield in the Afghanistan war. How can you afford someone U.S. Constitutional rights if they are not citizens??

The answer, you can't...

I watched Fox News, and no one, I repeat, NO ONE, called any of the Democrats on using this tactic.

I have been wondering when this would happen for years; hopefully, someone with some sense will be able to read Roe V. Wade and interpret what Justice Blackmun said in the actual discussion of the validity of the case of Roe V. Wade and it status of justiciability in the Courts of our land.

The above stated story is being presented in Federal Court. The question at hand is:

Can a person be held liable for killing a "fetus" by killing the pregnant woman, therefore causing the subsequent death of the fetus?

This question was answered in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, when Justice Blackmum stated, in agreement between the defense lawyer and the plaintiff's lawyer in the following conversation:

Appellee argues that the State's determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation.

BUT: The Court went on to state:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hmmmmm. If this man is convicted of killing a "fetus", WHY would he be held to that standard? I ask you pro-abortionists, why would the previous discussion even take place in Roe V. Wade if a fetus was nothing to even matter to the Court? Because the whole balance of Roe hinged on whether or not anyone had been held liable for the death of an unborn child, even if survivability of the unborn was only 1 in 100. Read it for yourself, I didn't make it up, it is in Roe v. Wade.

This is a TRUE STORY:

Black Americans are so blinded by their own readiness to jump at the first chance at a “racially toned” anything, they forget that they too are capable of making discriminating remarks and inuendos as layed out by the guidlines of the American Civil Rights Act, and the American’s with Disabilities Act. I was working for the USPS, before I was forced to take medical retirement. One night, because of the inability of management to comprehend the effects of my medicine on my ability to literaly walk and do my job, (after three letters from my neuroligist), I was walking back to my job post; when a black man I had worked with for years thought it would be funny to make the following comment:

“Hey, don’t fall down and have a seizure there on the floor, we’d hate to have to clean up the mess...”

While another co-worker was standing by waving his arms trying to get him to shut-up, he continued his discriminatory statement.

When he was done with his statement, I told him that it would be in his best interest if he never spoke to me again.

Upon the next night’s shift, he approached me and asked me “if I was mad or upset with him”. I told him that what he had said to me was no different than if “I had called him the “n-word”, and if he realized I could have his job taken through a filing through an EEO complaint filing?”

He still didn’t get it...

I further explained that discrimination comes in more forms than just skin color, and that it would do him good to actually read the Civil Rights Act in it’s entirity...

I also told him that I had decided that I would not go to file an EEO complaint, because I felt that I was man enough to just overlook his ignorance.

I take it you are being sarcastic.......

Sorry about the repeats, don’t know what happened??

I tak a fence to that, cause I are one!!

I tak a fence to that, cause I are one!!

I tak a fence to that, cause I are one!!

I have heard that they are pretty good at “Seperation of Church and State”. But wait, that wouldn’t work, that make them come off as hypocrites..........

Now I’m confused.

If something has to have a certain degree of “faith” to be believed, does that make it to a certain degree: firm belief in something for which there is not 100% proof?